« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Regulations 11, 12 and 13
Question 23: Are the procedures set out in Regulations 11-13 sufficient and appropriate?
Most respondents agreed in general that the procedures set out in this regulation were sufficient and appropriate. While the procedures were agreed with most respondents made further comments:
"While the assessment and reassessment procedures associated with Regulation 11 to 13 are appropriate, they may well involve a considerable amount of additional work that local authorities will not be able to achieve without the provision of significant additional resources by the Scottish Government."
"This section needs to be re-drafted using language that reflects GIRFEC terminology. Why not adopt the integrated assessment triangle material for undertaking an assessment? "
"There must be integration of regulations and Guidance with service provisions under other systems and legislation. There should be clear cross-referencing in the Guidance to: Health Service provision and Strategies; Education services, particularly the Additional Support for Learning structures; Corporate parenting issues for local authorities; and the GIRFEC Agenda. There must be nothing in the regulations etc which cut across these, and no procedures which work against good practice, inter-agency co-operation."
"Regulation 11 (1) appears limiting, if in the assessment other services seem appropriate, there should be a facility for offering these."
"Regulation 11 says that an assessment/reassessment should be done in relation to a specific type of service rather than the whole range of services in order to simplify matters. This is not clear - adopters might have, and usually do need more than one type of service. For example if more than one child is placed in a family, needs might be different for each child."
"Consulting the Health Board about their services - who in the Health Board […] Educational services are equally important and are not mentioned."
"any assessment must be multi-disciplined Social work, Health Visitor, Psychologist, Education…as complex cases."
"reference is made to consulting Health - can it be clarified why Health is specified rather than other agencies i.e. Education"
"Regulations 12(2)(c) and 13(2)(c) need to be expanded, and also clarified in Guidance. Health Boards should be informed of the needs and consulted at the appropriate professional level, for instance the child's GP. It must be clear that it is not enough for someone in the agency to write a letter to a Board's head office without positive contact with the professionals relevant to the particular case. Guidance can expand on this but it is crucial for children and families to access services when and where they need them. This duty has to work effectively and not just be a paper exercise."
"some criteria should apply to requests for re-assessments Otherwise, there is a danger that someone who remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the original assessment and the response to their representations, will continuously apply for re-assessments."
"It would be appropriate to specify a timescale for responding to and completing a written assessment."
"it might be helpful to specify timescales, e.g. upon receipt of the request, the assessment must commence within 28 days and the notice of proposed provision to be provided within a further 56 days"
"Regulation 12d refers to assessing the parenting capacity of adoptive parents. Adopters who request to be assessed will by definition have problems/ issues and be stressed. They have already been assessed when they applied to adopt on their parenting skills and have satisfied the criteria by being approved. They will now be required to be re-assessed on this. By whom and how? A veritable minefield!"
"The systems must not make applicants for assessments or recipients of services feel they are being challenged about making their requests. They must not feel they are being questioned in a way which sounds like: 'Why do you need any help?'"
"Strong, clear Guidance on the appropriate handling of requests etc is crucial. The mindset of professionals carrying out assessments and making decisions about services must be positive."
"Regulation 11 should contain a right for applicants under s.9 and relevant members under s49(2) to challenge local authorities' decisions to limit assessments."
"Regulations 12(1)(d) and 13(1)(d) are too wide and imply parental fault. They should be deleted. They will encourage a negative mindset in assessors and discourage applicants from seeking support. This is the type of approach which we argue against above."
"Definitions of 'relevant' family and 'relevant member' should be given in full in regulation."
"Regulations 12(1)(f) and (13)(1)(f) mention placing for adoption and matching. We are not clear about why both terms are used. Is the intention to cover agency adopted children?"
"Regulations 12(2) and 13(2) must include the views of the child, subject to the usual qualification about age and maturity - see s14(4)(b) and (8) of the Act. These decisions are agency ones about adoption of a child, in terms of s.14."
Scottish Government response
The responses to this question were supportive of the general theme of regulations 11-13 and were satisfied that the provisions of those regulations were sufficient. However there was a concerted call for clear guidance on the workings of these regulations in addressing the need to mirror related programs from the Scottish Government such as GIRFEC assessment processes, ASL and corporate parenting. The guidance should also make clear the intention of assessing applicants with regard to certain services, and the link to related services in the planning and assessment stages. We intend to bring these recommendations forward in the drafting of the guidance.
Reference to the Health Board specifically was made due to the particular importance of the health of the person requesting the assessment. The regulation states that a health Board should be consulted where it is appropriate to do so (where that person may have a need of services provided by the Health Board). The discretionary powers in the regulation allow for agencies t consult a wide range of different authorities where it is appropriate to do so. This is in line with the GIRFEC principle of multi-agency working "where it is appropriate". Not all services will need to be involved in the consideration of adoption support services, and if we attempted to name all services in the regulations some may inevitably be missed. Therefore, the discretionary power would be required in all instances and should be used by agencies when it is required.
Respondents thought that timescales for the responding to requests for assessment should be considered. One of the main considerations for this request was so that the assessments were prioritised and not left untouched. Respondents suggested that the assessment should begin 28 days after the request. We will draft this into the relevant regulations. However, respondents also wanted the assessment to be completed within a further 56 days. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to place a timescale on the consideration of the assessment as this could be a complicated process. It would be more appropriate to ensure that the assessment is completed within a reasonable timescale. We will ensure that this practice is highlighted in the guidance. In considering requests for assessments, respondents also highlighted the possibility of those who are not satisfied with the outcome of an assessment of continue to request re-assessment. The powers under which this regulation is drafted are s13(1) and 49(7) of the 2007 Act. The powers provide that in making an assessment/re-assessment the agency must do so in the manner prescribed, with regard to matters which are prescribed. This focus is on the duty of the agency not on limiting the individual making requests for re-assessment. Vexatious or repeated requests for re-assessment should be able to be dealt with administratively where no new information is provided.
We do not propose to change the criteria that are assessed in the assessment of support needs. While parenting capacity is assessed in the adoption process, this does not mean that this will not have altered, nor does it mean that it should not be assessed again. We will make it clear in guidance that a request for support should not automatically count against parenting capacity and good practice should be that this does not mean that the person requesting the support should engender a negative mindset.
We do not think it is appropriate to assess the views of the child where that child is not involved in the support service that will be required. The child should not be unduly involved in occasions when another person, for example a natural parent, has requested an assessment for adoption support. It is not clear why a child's views would need to be taken in circumstance where another party has requested the assessment. Where the child has requested the assessment for an adoption support service there is already provision for them to be interviewed. Where the child is relevant to the request the discretionary powers allow the child to be approached for their views.
« Previous | Contents | Next »